Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Eccouncil ECSS Exam - Topic 3 Question 72 Discussion

Actual exam question for Eccouncil's ECSS exam
Question #: 72
Topic #: 3
[All ECSS Questions]

Robert, a security specialist, was appointed to strengthen the security of the organization's network. To prevent multiple login attempts from unknown sources, Robert implemented a security strategy of issuing alerts or warning messages when multiple failed login attempts are made.

Which of the following security risks is addressed by Robert to make attempted break-ins unsuccessful?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Nieves at Aug 06, 2023, 09:25 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium ECSS Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Nancey
6 months ago
Alerts for failed logins are a must in today's security landscape!
upvoted 0 times
...
Denise
6 months ago
Wait, are we sure this really stops all break-ins?
upvoted 0 times
...
Cassie
7 months ago
I think it's more about weak session-ID generation, though.
upvoted 0 times
...
Von
7 months ago
Definitely addressing the account lockout issue here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erick
7 months ago
Sounds like a solid move to prevent brute force attacks!
upvoted 0 times
...
Becky
7 months ago
I keep getting confused between session timeouts and account lockouts. I guess indefinite session timeout doesn't really apply here, so I lean towards option B as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vincent
7 months ago
This reminds me of a practice question we did on failed login attempts. I think Robert's strategy is more about alerting for multiple attempts, so option B makes the most sense to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolande
8 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like session-ID generation is important too. Maybe options C or D could be relevant, but they don't seem to fit the scenario as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lennie
8 months ago
I remember studying about account lockout policies, so I think option B might be the right answer since it relates to preventing unauthorized access.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fidelia
8 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this. The question is clearly asking about the red flag related to the inability to verify the beneficial owners' identities, which is a major AML risk. I'll select option C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marquetta
8 months ago
This seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the cultural dimensions and how they might impact motivation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aretha
8 months ago
I'm leaning towards option C because accessibility and resource management seem crucial, but I'm not entirely sure about the meetings part.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ozell
1 year ago
Bingo! The correct answer is B. Absence of account lockout for invalid session IDs. Gotta love a good security strategy that nips those break-in attempts in the bud. Robert's on the ball with this one.
upvoted 0 times
Viola
11 months ago
Security is so important in today's digital world. Good work, Robert!
upvoted 0 times
...
Cory
11 months ago
It's great to see proactive measures being taken to protect sensitive information.
upvoted 0 times
...
Markus
11 months ago
Definitely, having account lockout for invalid session IDs can really help keep the network secure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rochell
12 months ago
Nice job, Robert! That's a smart move to prevent unauthorized access.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bong
1 year ago
D) Weak session-ID generation
upvoted 0 times
...
Leslie
1 year ago
User 3: Robert did a good job implementing that security measure to keep the network safe.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marti
1 year ago
C) Small session-ID generation
upvoted 0 times
...
Cecil
1 year ago
B) Absence of account lockout for invalid session IDs
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristal
1 year ago
User 2: Yeah, that's right. It's important to have that in place to prevent break-ins.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonie
1 year ago
User 1: I think the answer is B) Absence of account lockout for invalid session IDs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mignon
1 year ago
A) Indefinite session timeout
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Charlene
1 year ago
Weak session-ID generation? Nah, that's not the issue here. This is all about preventing those pesky login attempts from unknown sources. Way to go, Robert! Keeping the bad guys out, one alert at a time.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charlesetta
1 year ago
Hmm, I'd say this is addressing the issue of brute-force attacks. Alerting on multiple failed attempts is a smart move to catch those sneaky login attempts. Robert's got the right idea - keep those digital intruders out!
upvoted 0 times
Eura
1 year ago
D) Weak session-ID generation
upvoted 0 times
...
Rozella
1 year ago
C) Small session-ID generation
upvoted 0 times
...
Felice
1 year ago
B) Absence of account lockout for invalid session IDs
upvoted 0 times
...
Kallie
1 year ago
A) Indefinite session timeout
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Billi
1 year ago
Ah, the age-old problem of unauthorized access! I bet Robert is feeling like a security superhero right now. Locking down those login attempts is the way to go - gotta keep those hackers at bay, you know?
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamie
1 year ago
I believe option B) Absence of account lockout for invalid session IDs is the security risk addressed by Robert. Locking out accounts after multiple failed attempts can prevent unauthorized access.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
1 year ago
I agree with Kris. By issuing alerts, Robert is making it harder for attackers to guess valid credentials through trial and error.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kris
1 year ago
I think Robert is addressing the risk of brute force attacks by implementing alerts for multiple failed login attempts.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel